The self-medicating alchemist sounds like it might use mechanics similar to the binder: A suite of special abilities that can be changed on a daily basis.
The summoner might also use binder-like daily suites of powers to buff his pet demon. Sounds like a lot of fun!
I made a version of the warlock AND the hexblade that got luck-rerolls that were based on points....the oracle might use something like that too.
I wonder if the Oracle will have the ability to affect fate and probabilities similar to what I came with up for a Witch base class (that I can't link to because searching is disabled).
It would work like Bardic Music or a Monks Ki Points but can be used to force rerolls on enemies or allow them for allies among other things. It's not a new idea but one that was only previously used in a couple of PrCs, Fatespinner being one them.
Needless to say, I would really dig a class like this.
Yes, this would be a lot of fun. Ditto on the guy that said Scarlet Witch. I'm just hoping they aren't deity-specific ala most druids.
|
So I think I have this figured out. There are 4 new classes:
Cavalier who doesn't have a horse
Alchemist who doesn't do alchemy
Summoner who doesn't use summoning spells
Oracle who doesn't predict the future It's all clear now :)
Sounds about right!
After all, we're playing a game where one of the core classes is the 'wizard' and they aren't particularly *wise.*
So I think I have this figured out. There are 4 new classes:
Cavalier who doesn't have a horse
Alchemist who doesn't do alchemy
Summoner who doesn't use summoning spells
Oracle who doesn't predict the future It's all clear now :)
Hey guys, this is a fun experiment in conjecture based on tiny tidbits of info. Getting frustrated is pointless because we really don't know enough to get any real sense of the thing.
Yeah, pretty much. Maybe the APHB is, in fact, a ruse, and the classes are all nega classes! The alternate class features are the silent bard, the magic draining wizard and the clumsy rogue.
Sidenote: From the tiny tidbit we've heard so far, is the summoner like, anathema to you?
Now classes like Samurai, from Complete Warrior, were lame. Especially since a Fighter can duplicate most of what the CW Samurai had. That one needs an overhaul and I remember reading Jason or Erik saying they wanted to do oriental classes like Samurai and Ninja in PF-style.
See, I've always felt those are classes that are the epitome of money-grubbing and class bloating. Fighter and rogue cover a lot of concepts, across a lot of cultures. At best, I'd make those two paladin and assassin, respectively, or perhaps make a few feats specific to Japanese culture. But I've yet to hear of anything special that justifies either of those two concepts as core classes to me. It always felt more like fetishizing and orientalizing to me.
I think the Oracle might have something to do with those Tarot card things from the 2nd ap.
Nah. There's already a PrC for the Harrow deck. I guess that if the oracle gets to use divnination helpers, they get to decide what they can use - cards, tea leaves, entrails, gummy bears...
I can understand why the Blackguard would not be in the APHB. It's the evil version of the Paladin. It's not a class that PCs typically should be using. It belongs in the ADMG
Nah, I think the Advanced PHB is fine. Evil characters are for advanced players. So if you want a book for advancec players, give them something for an advanced concept.
I don't have a deck......are there gods of Golarion in them and whatnot?
Nah. It's pretty much a D&D/PFRPG version of the Tarot deck. Doesn't have anything Golarion specific on it. You get cards like The Paladin, The Rabbit King, The Unicorn, The Tyrant.
Take a look at that Tome of Secrets. It seems to do exactly that: Create PFRPG versions of those concepts.May I have a link to that? I'm curious.
I don't have one handy, but it's from Adamant Entertainment if I recall correctly.
See, I've always felt those are classes that are the epitome of money-grubbing and class bloating. Fighter and rogue cover a lot of concepts, across a lot of cultures. At best, I'd make those two paladin and assassin, respectively, or perhaps make a few feats specific to Japanese culture. But I've yet to hear of anything special that justifies either of those two concepts as core classes to me. It always felt more like fetishizing and orientalizing to me.
I think that the samurai in its original context (the "Oriental Adventures" campaign setting) was much more legitimate than its reappearance in Complete Warrior.
You may or may not like that setting, but like it or not, I think it was CRUCIAL that samurai get their own core class: it is extremely important (for the mood and themes of the setting) that samurai be tangibly and evidently different from "common fighters", even if they're taking the same feats, and even if the "fighter" is rich while the "samurai" is an exile clad in rags. This was an example of the mechanics serving the flavor of a world rather than the other way around, and I approve of that even if it does result in some mechanical crowding.
Outside of that setting, though, the samurai is definitely a lame duck.
I do not think that its inclusion in Complete Warrior was "money-grubbing", however. I think it was more of a mindless, "It's a 3.0 class so we need to update it" sort of thing (now, you could make a good case one a broader level that that whole "we need to update everything" was about money-grubbing- you could make a case that 3.5 itself was all about money-grubbing- but I wouldn't pick on the samurai exclusively).
A D&D samurai should probably have those arty and social skills, some bonus feats, some kind of ancestral weapon ability, and maybe even something like Sudden Strike from the 3.5 ninja class when combined with Quick Draw (Iaijitsu Strike?).
The trick is in looking at what makes these Asian-themed classes fun to play from a player's perspective, and then designing them so that they are significantly different from the core classes so they bring something new and different to the gaming experience, while at the same time being evocative of the historical era as well as the fantasy fiction/movies on which they are based.
I think we can expect exactly that if Paizo tackles the subject. ^_^
See, I can respect that, within the OA setting, a samurai does need certain abilities that aren't exactly covered by the existing fighter. Where I have problems is "does this need to be a core class?" Because, to me, what you're describing is a PRC, or a paladin variant. Now, some of that comes to theory on what a core class is and what a PRC is. But,if it's not doing anything mechanically new and different, I'd just as soon it was left out. None of it, honestly, sounds unique enough to require an entire core class.
Historically, I have to call BS. A samurai may have been a bit different from the next dude with a sword, but I kind of resent the idea that the samurai is a unique snowflake requiring its own ruleset, while the spartan, viking, maori, or whatever else they show on that spike TV show (yes, I'm aware of how trashy it is, but I can't stop watching it) should be lumped in with the existing core classes. And if everyone gets a unique classes, why screw around with the core classes at all? Pretty much all great warriors have had their own training regimens and unique philosophies, special skills etc etc etc. Other than Japanophilia, what makes the samurai any worthier of unique rules?
Historically, I have to call BS. A samurai may have been a bit different from the next dude with a sword, but I kind of resent the idea that the samurai is a unique snowflake requiring its own ruleset, while the spartan, viking, maori, or whatever else they show on that spike TV show (yes, I'm aware of how trashy it is, but I can't stop watching it) should be lumped in with the existing core classes. And if everyone gets a unique classes, why screw around with the core classes at all? Pretty much all great warriors have had their own training regimens and unique philosophies, special skills etc etc etc. Other than Japanophilia, what makes the samurai any worthier of unique rules?
Nyambe: African Adventures creates a similar variant called the "ghambi fighter" (a fighter with more hitpoints, less feats, no armor, and a few misc. powers).
If I were playing in a Greek setting I may very well give spartain warriors their own class, though to my understanding the caste system and social stratification wasn't nearly as rigid there (Spartains in my mind are more likely to respect anyone who is good in a fight). It's all about making the mechanics serve the setting.
You can resent it until you're blue in the face, but this is Oriental Freaking Adventures, and in Oriental Freaking Adventures, samurai are a big deal. Like it or not, they ARE unique snowflakes who deserve their own mechanics (in that particular setting/genre), and they SHOULD be. And if I were designing a game for Tolkien's mythos I might well have classes specific to each elvenhost, and if I joined a Wild West game I wouldn't be at all surprised to see different and distinct treatment given to dirty bandits and tough lawmen.
Don't pretend the core D&D classes are any different. You could very easily model the druid using the cleric class, but they are different because D&D wants to emphasize a distinction between the "wild religion" of the druids and the more civilized theology of the clerics. Likewise the ranger could be a fighter and "favored enemy" could be a feat chain, but the ranger is a powerful archetype and thus gets its own treatment. These are the ways that D&D serves its quasi-european setting.
And this is ESPECIALLY true of the paladin, the very class you invoked when you claimed that the samurai could be a paladin variant. Who's to say that the paladin shouldn't be a samurai variant?
D&D's core classes weren't etched in stone tablets and handed to a Jew. There's nothing special about them other than they're what most gamers use most of the time. And if different classes serve your needs even SLIGHTLY better, for whatever reason, then by all means you should use them.
See, I can respect that, within the OA setting, a samurai does need certain abilities that aren't exactly covered by the existing fighter. Where I have problems is "does this need to be a core class?" Because, to me, what you're describing is a PRC, or a paladin variant. Now, some of that comes to theory on what a core class is and what a PRC is. But,if it's not doing anything mechanically new and different, I'd just as soon it was left out. None of it, honestly, sounds unique enough to require an entire core class.
As for what does/doesn't "require" an entire core class, see above. But for what its worth, I do agree that a more mechanically distinct class (one designed to get to the core of what makes a samurai "different") would always be better, especially if he brought enough new ideas to the table that he could stand alongside the fighter in any setting.
If I were playing in a Greek setting I may very well give spartain warriors their own class, though to my understanding the caste system and social stratification wasn't nearly as rigid there (Spartains in my mind are more likely to respect anyone who is good in a fight). It's all about making the mechanics serve the setting.
Then why bother having a fighter? My point was that, while they may take weapons and feats based on their culture, all of those classes could, more or less, just be represented by a fighter (well, some by the barbarian, but you know what I mean).
You can resent it until you're blue in the face, but this is Oriental Freaking Adventures, and in Oriental Freaking Adventures, samurai are a big deal. Like it or not, they ARE unique snowflakes who deserve their own mechanics (in that particular setting/genre), and they SHOULD be. And if I were designing a game for Tolkien's mythos I might well have classes specific to each elvenhost, and if I joined a Wild West game I wouldn't be at all surprised to see different and distinct treatment given to dirty bandits and tough lawmen.
Actually, we're talking pathfinder right now. And no, I don't think they are that unique. This kind of thinking is how we get class bloat. The existing classes are customizable for a reason. Not all of these things NEED core classes. Frankly, not all of them need prestige classes. The idea that every single character concept needs its own core class despite working perfectly well within the framework of other classes has lead to some really bad classes (remember the Wu Jen, everyone?), and I don't think that will change. If we want to stop class bloat from happening, we have to cut the fat somewhere.
Don't pretend the core D&D classes are any different. You could very easily model the druid using the cleric class, but they are different because D&D wants to emphasize a distinction between the "wild religion" of the druids and the more civilized theology of the clerics. Likewise the ranger could be a fighter and "favored enemy" could be a feat chain, but the ranger is a powerful archetype and thus gets its own treatment. These are the ways that D&D serves its quasi-european setting.
Well, I have said I think several of the core classes should just be prestige classes. The druid does enough that's mechanically unique that they'd be hard to fit into a prc. And I agree, the ranger is actually unnecessary. I actually think the monk and the barbarian are even better examples of "things that could be made PRCs or feat chains." point being, I'm not pretending they are any different, but those things are already in the D20 SRD, so they had to be put in pathfinder for backwards compatibly. I don't think that's an excuse to bloat the system further.
And this is ESPECIALLY true of the paladin, the very class you invoked when you claimed that the samurai could be a paladin variant. Who's to say that the paladin shouldn't be a samurai variant?
See, this just proves my point. The paladin COULD be a samurai variant, if a quasi-Japanese setting was the default for D&D. If that was the default, I'd moan and groan over the introduction of an entirely new class that could just be a variation of the samurai. Redundancy is a two-way street.
D&D's core classes weren't etched in stone tablets and handed to a Jew. There's nothing special about them other than they're what most gamers use most of the time. And if different classes serve your needs even SLIGHTLY better, for whatever reason, then by all means you should use them.
Yes, you're definitely right here. The golden rule always applies. But we're talking theory and design, and I'm just presenting my ideas.
As for what does/doesn't "require" an entire core class, see above. But for what its worth, I do agree that a more mechanically distinct class (one designed to get to the core of what makes a samurai "different") would always be better, especially if he brought enough new ideas to the table that he could stand alongside the fighter in any setting.
But see, this is my point. I honestly don't see a samurai class that can do this. Tell me what a samurai needs to do that makes it so different, because nobody has presented many specific ideas. So far we've got a spiritual bond with his weapon, which the paladin already does. Then we've got social class stuff, which doesn't make sense to me. A character class shows us what a person does, not who they are in society. Social class could be fluff here. We have a special code, which could just be a "change chivalry to this" sidebar. We have artsy skills, which are fine, but couldn't we just create a "Change the paladin skill list to this" sidebar? Then we have quick draw, which probably would need its own samurai-only feat chain. What does it do that is specific to it, that justifies its own core class?
I can see the point that if you don't have a specific book dedicated to a certain part of a campaign world, you don't need to have new or alternate classes. But, if you're going to have a book that is dedicated to covering a specific culture, I would expect that book to have new classes as well as tips and ideas for converting the standard 11 core classes to match the setting.
Taking the "viking" example noted above, if you're just talking about the standard fantasy-Europe campaign setting, then it's true, you could just call a "viking" a fighter and be done with it. However, if a company is going to come out with a book that focuses on a viking-style culture (which would be really cool, HINT HINT) then I would really expect to see a berserker class (that's different from the standard barbarian), a rune-based wizard type class, and a skald-type class that is better at fighting and not quite so well-versed in magic as the standard bard class. I would also want alternate class abilities for the other core classes to show how they can be more easily integrated into a viking-style culture.
The same works for an Asian-themed book or any other culture that you want, really (Greek, Roman, etc.). Green Ronin, back in the 3E/3.5 days, put out a bunch of historical supplements (Trojan Wars, Roman Empire, etc.) and they all included new classes that were specific to that setting. An Oriental Adventures book is no different.
Well, yes, I do want to see some crunch if they're going to create setting-specific books like that. However, this is where my thoughts kind of diverge from yours. I would argue that none of those require core classes. Most of those feel like having classes just to have them. The berzerker could just have some variant barbarian rage abilities (and, again, perhaps an altered skill list). The Skald could just swap out some of the bards class features for fighter feats. A runecaster, if it actually did something different could potentially require a PRC. As much as I like fluff surrounding other cultures, I think fans need to be wary of crunch that isn't actually new.
See, I picture Samurai doing plenty of things a standard fighter doesn't do.
1. Cause fear in opponents . . . that whole "samurai stare" thing.
2. Let out a great big war cry that lets him get stronger/do more damage.
3. Get bonuses to damage when using his ancestral daisho, and only those specific weapons, with big penalties for loosing them and a pain in the ass path to investing a new set of them.
4. More skills than a fighter
5. No shields
6. Some way to upgrade the daisho without having to ditch them for better magic weapons.
I think there is plenty of room to play with a samurai class, myself.
Then we've got social class stuff, which doesn't make sense to me. A character class shows us what a person does, not who they are in society.
Why? Says who? Why can't it be?
That's not a rhetorical question. You're arguing against one of the fundamental (if unspoken) themes of Oriental Adventures/L5R/the samurai "genre". Samurai are noble, fighters are commoners. Shugenja, are noble, sorcerers are commoners. Nobles and commoners are made of different stuff. Even if both can accomplish similar things, there are tangible differences between them, and those differences are important for establishing one of the core themes of the genre.
I'll have to give your post better treatment tomorrow, as I've gotta jet (shouldn't have checked the messageboards if I didn't have an hour to spare ^^;), but seriously. Why can't your class be related to your caste, or your race, or even your literary roll, if that better serves the genre that you're trying to invoke?
I'm not saying this should be the case for every game, just that it works for some.
|
See, I picture Samurai doing plenty of things a standard fighter doesn't do.
1. Cause fear in opponents . . . that whole "samurai stare" thing.
2. Let out a great big war cry that lets him get stronger/do more damage.
3. Get bonuses to damage when using his ancestral daisho, and only those specific weapons, with big penalties for loosing them and a pain in the ass path to investing a new set of them.
4. More skills than a fighter
5. No shields
6. Some way to upgrade the daisho without having to ditch them for better magic weapons.
I think there is plenty of room to play with a samurai class, myself.
None of those are really particularly iconic as I see it and definitively samurai-ish - it's not even really that Japanese. Samurai was a social class, not a profession. Plenty of samurai could probably get by with the aristocrat class. At least some of what you suggest is already in the rules - 1. is a use of the Intimidate skill, and 2. is a barbarian (not all samurai are the same, or even the same class necessarily).
I don't agree or disagree particularly strenuously with any of the comments above, but I do know that what you see as a samurai has absolutely nothing to do with an historical one. That in and of iteself isn't necessarily a problem - the paladin has very little to do with the historical knights of Charlemagne. But I think that it's also pretty clear that there isn't a very clear definition of what is the "fantasy samurai" - see the Seven Samurai for, well, at least seven archetypes instead of one.
|
|
So aside from the other discussions in this thread has there been any word yet on the next four classes?Exactly. I'm still confused as to what they are ;-(Exactly what they are is still up in the air, the names were announced (this is third hand):
Cavalier, Summoning type character, Crazy Alchemist class, and Oracle.
The summoning class is a class that apparently creates a custom animal companion type creature. Sounds like something between Pokemon and something really cool I heard about in the Belgariad... I'm not sure which, I'm hoping more towards the demon things from the Belgariad.
Beyond that I haven't heard much in the way of details.
Thanks!
Ok,
I'm going to either pour oil on troubled waters, or onto a wildfire, one of the two. Never know with me. :)
I agree with both sides. I think in an Oriental (or Viking, or African, or whatever) setting, the iconic warriors of that setting SHOULD be BASE classes.
However, I don't think they should be done as completely different classes than the core fighter class.
I think they should be done as lots and lots of fluff (exactly as much, if not more, fluff than the core fighter) and then their actual abilities be as alternate builds, or kits of the core fighter.
A Samurai would lose heavy armor (Samurai wore at most lacquered bamboo, similar to banded mail in protection). An oriental adventures setting would not have metal armor (metal is rare). A Viking setting would use hide or light armor (same reason), and an African setting might give the fighter (or barbarian) no armor at all.
A Samurai would gain some special abilities a core fighter didn't have, gain more skill points, but would also probably lose some things as well (some of his fighter feats being replaced with class abilities as certain levels). This would make him a specialized fighter (but still built off the core class). He'd have 20 levels of Samurai, and those levels would count towards his 'fighter' level for purposes of taking feats.
My idea, I hope they go with it. I'll lobby hard for it during the playtest that was announced.
|
While this went pretty far afield from the original post, I feel compelled to offer comment.
I don't have a problem with "unique setting" books having new base classes. Because they're specifically oriented toward something other than the quasi-European core rules, it's easy to categorically disallow them in a game. Real bloat, IMO, happens when there are supplements that introduce new BASE classes masquerading as CORE classes.
But even more important than this, is avoiding rules bloat (and potentially very serious game balance issues) by staying away from entirely new mechanics. (think Incarnum, ToB:BoNS, etc). These sorts of things are where rules bloat gets ugly and I start to get disenfranchised with a system.
Now, while I'm not opposed to new setting specific base classes at all, I think there's a far more elegant way to handle it: The Alternate Class Feature. I really liked some of the variants in 3.5 to various base classes that were available by just trading one ability for another. This made thematically tailoring the base classes very easy without introducing a whole new system or new base classes.
Sure it might be a stretch to create the flavor of a Samurai using a Fighter as listed in the core rules, but a couple of alternate class features and you're easily there. Paladin (as someone else mentioned here) would work even better... just swap the "holy" abilities for alternate class features that are "fealty" and/or "social" abilities instead.
I'm all for some occasional new RULES. Even a few new base classes is ok with me, but I'm pretty strongly opposed to new RULES SYSTEMS, and new base classes sometimes involve new systems to differentiate themselves.
Now classes like Samurai, from Complete Warrior, were lame. Especially since a Fighter can duplicate most of what the CW Samurai had. That one needs an overhaul and I remember reading Jason or Erik saying they wanted to do oriental classes like Samurai and Ninja in PF-style.See, I've always felt those are classes that are the epitome of money-grubbing and class bloating. Fighter and rogue cover a lot of concepts, across a lot of cultures. At best, I'd make those two paladin and assassin, respectively, or perhaps make a few feats specific to Japanese culture. But I've yet to hear of anything special that justifies either of those two concepts as core classes to me. It always felt more like fetishizing and orientalizing to me.
That's if you're trying to make a historical samurai.
The Samurai I am talking about is the "modernized-media entertainment-fantasy" samurai. As in the guy with the katana, using different martial techniques involving the use of his ki, flipping around and slicing and dicing and doing just fine with or without armor. The supernatural samurai, basically. Just like historical Paladins didn't flaunt holy magic, holy swords, and healing hands, but the fantasy version can. The same goes for Samurai. I don't think the Fighter class has what it takes to make THAT kind of Samurai. And the rules don't work by doing Fighter/Monk, either. If you want to play a historical one, play a Fighter and call it a Samurai. But these days, I don't think many people actually want to play a "historical" Samurai...they want to play the one from Final Fantasy Tactics or FFXI or the anime Sengoku Basara. That's the Samurai people, I think, are referring to (I know I do when I think of a fantasy one) and none of the current gaming material provided that except for d20 Rokugan and its use of Void, which was the closest I have ever seen to that type of Samurai character.
Wilder: Accesses the power of her mind through emotions, so maybe instead of bloodlines, there are "emotional paths" for the wilder's defining traits, or the emotion that caused the outbreak of her latent psionic abilities.
Alternately, have the 7 virtues and 7 sins as paths. You'd have a wilder of justice and wrath, for example, or hope and lust.
Oh, that's just a plain HOT way to mix psionic stuff into the Golarion fluff. Nice idea!
OoooOOOoooo - this ROCKS! Great concept!
I see where you're going, and I think this isn't really a bad approach. My only thought is that, once you...1) Take away the Fighter's heavy armor proficiency
2) Give him more skill points and more class skills
3) Delete some of his bonus feats
4) Add some level-based class abilities
5) (you didn't say this, but most likely I think there would be an alignment restriction, such as Any Lawful, and perhaps some tweaking of the weapon proficiencies, and as someone else said - they would probably lose all shield proficiencies)... those are enough changes that I think you're looking at a new class, not just a fighter with a few alternate abilities. And, if you're not going to change the class enough to require a separate class, then... why do it at all?
I do like alternate class abilities, like the stuff in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana and some of the newer books that came out toward the end of 3/5 that gave examples of things you could alter on a racial or class level. Those are cool. But, I still think it leaves room for creating new classes from whole cloth, as long as they are substantially different from the existing core classes.
It's a fine line, I'll admit. But, It keeps you from repeating things that are in character (Like Armor training, I think the Samurai should keep that, it's just as effective for medium armor as heavy armor). The every other level feat/class ability progression, his BAB, his saves, his weapon proficiencies (although adding Bastard Sword as an exotic weapon), and yes, shield and lawful alignment as well. Honestly, it really is a fine line with the Samurai. Some other classes (Like Ninja) work better with this approach (An alternate build of a rogue). I'd say Samurai is honestly right on the bleeding edge of what you could do with an alternate build without it getting to be too much.
On another note, I also agree with another poster, the idea is not to make the historically accurate samurai, it's to make the 'Romantic' Samurai, such as you see in various Anime and movies (Samurai Champloo, despite it's really over the topness, is an excellent example of 'Romantic' Samurai, almost supernatural in his abilities). If you're going for the supernatural version of the samurai, he should be another class, almost a cross between knight and monk. If you're going for the 'Really really good but not supernatural' Samurai (such as the bad guys in most of the Blind Samurai Zatochi movies) then an alternate build of a fighter is best.
|
|
That's if you're trying to make a historical samurai.
The Samurai I am talking about is the "modernized-media entertainment-fantasy" samurai. As in the guy with the katana, using different martial techniques involving the use of his ki, flipping around and slicing and dicing and doing just fine with or without armor. The supernatural samurai, basically. Just like historical Paladins didn't flaunt holy magic, holy swords, and healing hands, but the fantasy version can. The same goes for Samurai. I don't think the Fighter class has what it takes to make THAT kind of Samurai. And the rules don't work by doing Fighter/Monk, either. If you want to play a historical one, play a Fighter and call it a Samurai. But these days, I don't think many people actually want to play a "historical" Samurai...they want to play the one from Final Fantasy Tactics or FFXI or the anime Sengoku Basara. That's the Samurai people, I think, are referring to (I know I do when I think of a fantasy one) and none of the current gaming material provided that except for d20 Rokugan and its use of Void, which was the closest I have ever seen to that type of Samurai character.
I do believe you're right that there's room for a more "fantastic" samurai in Pathfinder. However, I think making a base class for such is the wrong path to take. Not only does this destroy the idea of more tradition samurai characters, it's also largely unnecessary.
Personally, I think the absolute best path to follow would be using the bases classes like fighter, rogue, wizard, etc. to represent like samurai, shinobi, onmyouji, etc. However, add in new feats and prestige classes to provide some variety and to cover the different various different samurai, shinobi, onmyouji, etc. tropes from history, legend, literature and pop culture.
One thing I do hope for, though, is that if there is ever a "sword-saint" type class or prestige class is that they spell it properly (it's "kensei", NOT "kensai"). Grrr! Arg!
|
|
I think that the samurai in its original context (the "Oriental Adventures" campaign setting) was much more legitimate than its reappearance in Complete Warrior.
You may or may not like that setting, but like it or not, I think it was CRUCIAL that samurai get their own core class: it is extremely important (for the mood and themes of the setting) that samurai be tangibly and evidently different from "common fighters", even if they're taking the same feats, and even if the "fighter" is rich while the "samurai" is an exile clad in rags. This was an example of the mechanics serving the flavor of a world rather than the other way around, and I approve of that even if it does result in some mechanical crowding.
I have to address this particular conceit whenever it comes up.
As a Japanese scholar, I am frequently stunned by the amazing misconceptions that still persist about the samurai. A lot of those misconceptions are ones that the Japanese themselves invented as part of the literature written by samurai about their ancestors and deeds during the 17th through 19th centuries in much the same way that almost all of the significant literature about chivalric knights was written after knights stopped being relevant on the battlefield.
"Samurai" is not a character class--it's a social class. Samurai were members of a noble class of Japanese society, descended from barbarian-fighting horsemen during the Heian period (about the 9th century CE). The word for their particular class wasn't coined formally until the beginning of the Tokugawa period (17th century CE), after the samurai had stopped being a significant factor militarily. Samurai were divided up into two (or three) strata, and while all were expected to be able to fight in theory, in practice they were mostly bureaucrats, accountants, poets, and courtiers.
If you want to expand the term to the Sengoku period, the so-called "golden age of samurai," which is fair enough really, then you're still looking at horsebowmen, musketeers, and various other kinds of soldiers leading hordes of conscripts. There is nothing special about the Japanese method of warfare except for the social restrictions that built up around it by the end of the Sengoku and the beginning of the Tokugawa, and the fact that it was adapted for a very resource-poor island nation.
For anyone who actually knows anything about Japanese history, seeing a class labeled as "the Samurai" isn't just a facepalm moment, it's a signifier that the writer doesn't actually know anything about Japan besides what he's seen in movies. It's also, frankly, a little insulting to the real diversity in Japanese history, which came primarily from the social structures involved.
Yes, there should be something to distinguish a common fighter from a samurai: the Noble Birth trait. A samurai is better-bred, more literate, and trained in administration (in a perfect world, anyway) than some wandering thug with a sword. There. Done. You don't need a separate class for this, even in an "Oriental" (and that word is a signifier too) setting.
You want a samurai wielding a katana and wearing full o-yoroi armor into battle? Fighter. A Musashi-school duelist wielding katana and wakizashi? Ranger, or two-weapon fighter. And the list goes on and on. And not all samurai were warriors! You could also have a samurai wizard (practicing alchemy or Taoist magic) or a samurai courtier! Those guys were samurai too!
I'm sorry if I seem particularly strident about this, but it's a personal peeve of mine. I'd be happy to start up another thread for further discussion.
Jeremy Puckett
I'm sorry if I seem particularly strident about this, but it's a personal peeve of mine. I'd be happy to start up another thread for further discussion.
I doubt I'd have much to contribute to such a thread, but personally, I wish you would. I'd be an interested reader, in any case.
Actually, we're talking pathfinder right now.
No, actually, if you scroll back you'll find that I was talking about Oriental Adventures. n_n
This might be the cause of our disagreement (possibly). In defending the samurai, I only went so far as to say that in its original context it was good. I agree that, in a general 3.5 game, it was redundant. And I would certianly be disappointed if we saw a 3.P class of the same sort (space out bonus feats, add good Will save and skills, call it good).
I'm not going to pass judgement on a Pathfinder "samurai" either way (assuming that they actually are considering making one). That would be absurd. The class does not exist yet.
If I had to make a prediction I would wager that Paizo is probably capable of making that archetype fresh, distinct, and viable in a Western setting. But I could easily be wrong.
See, this just proves my point. The paladin COULD be a samurai variant, if a quasi-Japanese setting was the default for D&D. If that was the default, I'd moan and groan over the introduction of an entirely new class that could just be a variation of the samurai. Redundancy is a two-way street.
Like I said above, I was only trying to defend the samurai in its origional context. And, in that original context, there aren't any paladins. It's one of the classes specifically barred from that setting.
... For anyone who actually knows anything about Japanese history, seeing a class labeled as "the Samurai" isn't just a facepalm moment, it's a signifier that the writer doesn't actually know anything about Japan besides what he's seen in movies. ...
Fantasy gamers aren't trying to model what they see in movies because they "don't know any better". That's a rediculous and condescending assumption to make, and you should feel emberrased for making it.
Fantasy gamers try to model what they see in movies because what they see in movies is cooler than reality.
Did you actually believe that most gamers didn't know the difference between Land of the Five Rings and the actual history of Japan? Good god.
|
|
Cavalier, Summoning type character, Crazy Alchemist class, and Oracle.
The summoning class is a class that apparently creates a custom animal companion type creature. Sounds like something between Pokemon and something really cool I heard about in the Belgariad... I'm not sure which, I'm hoping more towards the demon things from the Belgariad.
Beyond that I haven't heard much in the way of details.
I was at the seminar where they announced them, so let me see if I can provide some more details...
The Cavalier is a horse-riding battle leader. He gets a special mount (like a paladin or a ranger), but most of his class abilities involve "being a jerk" (Jason's words). He can berate his allies to stoke them into battle fury, insult his enemies so they make mistakes, and taunt powerful enemies into single combat. (Eric the Cavalier from the old D&D cartoon was mentioned.)
The Summoner is an arcanist who gets to build a personal pet monster from a list of class abilities he gains as he goes up in level. This monster is "summoned" in a variety of ways, which might include actual summoning, building them in a lab, or breeding them (owlbears were mentioned). This is the class we got the least information about; even the name is a placeholder.
The Alchemist is a deranged potion addict, capable of traditional alchemy and potion crafting as well as his specialty: making weird elixirs and draughts to give himself powers. Examples given were Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, the Invisible Man, and the Incredible Hulk.
The Oracle is a spontaneous divine caster with abilities that are in some way related to clerical domains, though that might change before the final draft of the class. Oracles gain revelatory powers that allow them to transcend human knowledge and skill, as well as gaining powers from their domains (like fire resistance and immunity for the Oracle of Fire, was the given example).
And that's pretty much what we know.
|
|
... For anyone who actually knows anything about Japanese history, seeing a class labeled as "the Samurai" isn't just a facepalm moment, it's a signifier that the writer doesn't actually know anything about Japan besides what he's seen in movies. ...Fantasy gamers aren't trying to model what they see in movies because they "don't know any better". That's a rediculous and condescending assumption to make, and you should feel emberrased for making it.
Fantasy gamers try to model what they see in movies because what they see in movies is cooler than reality.
Did you actually believe that most gamers didn't know the difference between Land of the Five Rings and the actual history of Japan? Good god.
No, I really shouldn't. If they're modeling movies and don't know that what they're seeing isn't actually representative of Japan, then they don't know any better. That's not an attack; it's a simple statement of fact. I'm not accusing any particular person of ignorance here; I'm just trying to combat that tendency toward it.
And I would entirely disagree that movies are always cooler than reality. Furthermore, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. There are tons of Japanese-made fantasy movies that address the actual history and society of their country while still giving interesting and new things to the viewers.
I'm not claiming that gamers don't know the difference between L5R and Japan; I'm stating that there are plenty of better ways to make Japan cool and interesting than by blurring the culture into a grey porridge of uninteresting and stereotypical approaches.
I apologize if you somehow felt there was a personal attack here, but the simple fact is that making a "samurai" character class is lazy design at best, and culturally ignorant at worst. That's what I'm trying to address.
Jeremy Puckett
No, I really shouldn't. If they're modeling movies and don't know that what they're seeing isn't actually representative of Japan, then they don't know any better. That's not an attack; it's a simple statement of fact.
That isn't what you said.
Let's look again.
... For anyone who actually knows anything about Japanese history, seeing a class labeled as "the Samurai" isn't just a facepalm moment, ...
Assumption that anyone who doesn't share your opinions regarding what should/shouldn't be a class (or your opinions regarding what "oriental fantasy" should/shouldn't mean) must not know anything about Japanese history.
.. it's a signifier that the writer doesn't actually know anything about Japan besides what he's seen in movies. ...
Further assumption that not only the fans, but the writers are ignorant as well, and that no one would ever knowingly propagate pulp-samurai if they knew anything about Japan.
|
|
That isn't what you said.
Maybe you're right. Or maybe you're being nitpicky. Either way, I will concede to the need for greater precision: Unless a writer is specifically creating a pulp version of Japan, then the mechanical assumptions you're defending are not just poor design, they're vaguely offensive. And even then, they're the latter.
And what you're doing here is attacking me rather than my point, which is: a samurai base class is bad design, because "samurai" is a social construct, not a method of training. Beyond that, I'm not really interested in cluttering up this thread any more. Start a new one if you want to pick another fight.
Jeremy Puckett
Maybe you're right. Or maybe you're being nitpicky.
You explicitely stated that anyone who doesn't share your opinion (including the entire pulp-samurai genre. Including the author of Oriental Adventures (James Wyatt, fyi), which won an ennie for "Best Campaign Setting") must not know anything about Japanese culture.
If you're not going to own up to your mistake there then good riddance.
Either way I'm done posting for the night. I'm emberrased to say that at this point I am genuinely pissed off.
Vehemently criticizing a genre is one thing. I can easily handle that, even if it's my favorite genre that's being criticized (which, fyi, "oriental pulp" certianly isn't). But sweepingly dismissing the fans and authors of a genre as ignorant (presuming that if they like said genre they can't possibly know anything about the subject matter) is a whole 'nother order of audacity.
The Cavalier is a horse-riding battle leader. He gets a special mount (like a paladin or a ranger), but most of his class abilities involve "being a jerk" (Jason's words). He can berate his allies to stoke them into battle fury, insult his enemies so they make mistakes, and taunt powerful enemies into single combat. (Eric the Cavalier from the old D&D cartoon was mentioned.)
Wait, seriously? Are they really making a class based on the cliche dissenter guy from the cartoon? Because, if they're not having a laugh at our expense that would be blatantly amazing to roleplay. I want one now.
See, I picture Samurai doing plenty of things a standard fighter doesn't do.
1. Cause fear in opponents . . . that whole "samurai stare" thing.
2. Let out a great big war cry that lets him get stronger/do more damage.
3. Get bonuses to damage when using his ancestral daisho, and only those specific weapons, with big penalties for loosing them and a pain in the ass path to investing a new set of them.
4. More skills than a fighter
5. No shields
6. Some way to upgrade the daisho without having to ditch them for better magic weapons.
I think there is plenty of room to play with a samurai class, myself.
These are interesting ideas, and most of them have become the gold standard in samurai classes. Here is what I would say to them.
1. This is an interesting idea, but really, it'd have to become quite developed to be class worthy. Is there enough of this to stay interesting and develop over 20 levels?
2. I hate this, and I wish it hadn't started in D&D. Lots and lots of warriors have had battle cries, and I don't see why it's special to the samurai. I'm not completely against including this, but what does it do, and can it stay interesting over 20 levels (to me, this sounds like fluff for smite evil).
3. This is a big one I start to have problems with. Real samurai didn't limit themselves to the daisho just because it's become their pop culture trademark. They used bows, and polearms, and anything else a smart fighter would bring along. Even if this weren't the case, it's bad design to effectively force characters to use one specific weapon set, and it encourages katana fappery.
4. I don't see how this is true any more than it is for anyone else. 2 skill points just aren't enough for anyone. Yes, a samurai has artsy skills, but they miss out on the skills a normal fighter would have in order to learn those skills. At best, I'd sacrifice a couple of feats for more skill points.
5. They don't need to use them. That could be fluff.
6. There are ways to do this already, but I wouldn't mind a feat or two encouraging it.
Overall, I will concede that, should we stick with this cliche stuff, there's room for a PRC, but I don't see any of this as being interesting enough to develop over 20 levels.
|
|
Wait, seriously? Are they really making a class based on the cliche dissenter guy from the cartoon? Because, if they're not having a laugh at our expense that would be blatantly amazing to roleplay. I want one now.
The Cavalier is a horse-riding battle leader. He gets a special mount (like a paladin or a ranger), but most of his class abilities involve "being a jerk" (Jason's words). He can berate his allies to stoke them into battle fury, insult his enemies so they make mistakes, and taunt powerful enemies into single combat. (Eric the Cavalier from the old D&D cartoon was mentioned.)
They're not actually basing it on Eric the Cavalier; they were just joking... I think. XD
The basis of the class seems to be much more the old medieval chevaliers, horse-trained knights who were into honor and war. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the class's main benefits was +1/2 class level to Ride checks, in the same way that rogues get trapfinding and rangers get track.
Jeremy Puckett
They're not actually basing it on Eric the Cavalier; they were just joking... I think. XDThe basis of the class seems to be much more the old medieval chevaliers, horse-trained knights who were into honor and war. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the class's main benefits was +1/2 class level to Ride checks, in the same way that rogues get trapfinding and rangers get track.
Damnit. It's late and I took that literally. Now I'm filed with sadness, though inspired to make an insult bard...
|
|
See, I picture Samurai doing plenty of things a standard fighter doesn't do.
1. Cause fear in opponents . . . that whole "samurai stare" thing.
2. Let out a great big war cry that lets him get stronger/do more damage.
3. Get bonuses to damage when using his ancestral daisho, and only those specific weapons, with big penalties for loosing them and a pain in the ass path to investing a new set of them.
4. More skills than a fighter
5. No shields
6. Some way to upgrade the daisho without having to ditch them for better magic weapons.
Let me address this:
1. The Intimidate skill doesn't have to be verbal. A cold glare can work just fine.
2. The war shout is a focusing technique that can be thematically applied to almost anything, from Power Attack to smite evil. You don't need a mechanic for it.
3. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization. Also, the concept of the ancestral daisho is something so specific to L5R/Rokugan that you can pick it out as soon as it gets mentioned.
4. Why? With the set-up for skills in Pathfinder, your 2 + Int goes a lot further than it did before. Though to be totally honest, I think just about everyone needs more skill points; 4 + Int should probably be the bottom.
5. Real samurai used shields extensively. Not the big medieval steel jobs, but they did use tower shields for arrow defense in battle as well as an equivalent to the buckler (called a kotei) used for hand to hand combat. They fell out of favor for much the same reason that they did in Europe: shields aren't much use against guns or big swords.
6. They have that now: Craft Magic Arms and Armor lets you upgrade existing weapons and armor as well as making new ones. Also, the Master Craftsman feat allows you to qualify for item crafting without magic.
Jeremy Puckett
I'm all for some occasional new RULES. Even a few new base classes is ok with me, but I'm pretty strongly opposed to new RULES SYSTEMS, and new base classes sometimes involve new systems to differentiate themselves.
Yes, you hit a biiiiig nail of 3.5 on the head right there. Sure, every class has more or less has its own subsystems (see mercy), but when they don't even work within the framework of the existing game, I start to lose interest in a big way. Incarnum, truenamer, pact guy, shadow thing, TOB, these all lost my interest and don't see use in my games. Other things, like the spellthief, or the healer (blech) that add something new but use the core system are at least worth looking at.
I'm pretty confident that the good folks at paizo know this. I'm willing to bet the summoner and the oracle are both typical vancian casters with some interesting class features (I'm dying to know more about the alchemist.)
|
|
No prob. "Open Source Content" ;-)
Ah, thanks. Knew I had seen it somewhere; my brain just wasn't working. ^_^
And, as far as I know, they will be. Eric and Jason indicated at the seminar that only their world stuff would remain closed content, and that any pure-rules stuff they did for the line would remain open content.
Jeremy Puckett
No prob. "Open Source Content" ;-)Ah, thanks. Knew I had seen it somewhere; my brain just wasn't working. ^_^
And, as far as I know, they will be. Eric and Jason indicated at the seminar that only their world stuff would remain closed content, and that any pure-rules stuff they did for the line would remain open content.
Jeremy Puckett
Someone mentioned that they were going to be beta-testing these things (not a bad business model for Paizo to continue). Any mention of when that would occur?
|
|
Yes, you hit a biiiiig nail of 3.5 on the head right there. Sure, every class has more or less has its own subsystems (see mercy), but when they don't even work within the framework of the existing game, I start to lose interest in a big way. Incarnum, truenamer, pact guy, shadow thing, TOB, these all lost my interest and don't see use in my games. Other things, like the spellthief, or the healer (blech) that add something new but use the core system are at least worth looking at.
While I agree with you in principle, I think there's definitely some room for leeway there. For example, the warlock uses a very different subsystem for its abilities, and I think that it remains one of the best pieces of design to come out of the Complete books. I think that, generally speaking, it's important for a class with its own subsystem to be able to fully explain that system and all of its inner workings in a fairly short amount of space.
And I forgot to mention in my earlier post about the new classes! At the seminar, they said that all six of the new classes will undergo open playtesting, just like the Beta did. Merry Christmas. ^_^
EDIT: Ninja'd! They said that it would be sometime between now and the release of Bestiary 2, but nothing more specific than that.
Jeremy Puckett
While I agree with you in principle, I think there's definitely some room for leeway there. For example, the warlock uses a very different subsystem for its abilities, and I think that it remains one of the best pieces of design to come out of the Complete books. I think that, generally speaking, it's important for a class with its own subsystem to be able to fully explain that system and all of its inner workings in a fairly short amount of space.
Yes, I was being a bit broad. I do like the warlock. It's the 're-inventing the wheel with new magic systems' thing that I hate. The warlock, at least Required minimal space for it's variant abilities.
And I forgot to mention in my earlier post about the new classes! At the seminar, they said that all six of the new classes will undergo open playtesting, just like the Beta did. Merry Christmas. ^_^EDIT: Ninja'd! They said that it would be sometime between now and the release of Bestiary 2, but nothing more specific than that.
There are 6? I thought there were 4. That's it, insult-based character or GTFO.